Dallas v. Lahl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dallas v. Lahl

269 A.D. 699, 53 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3366

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 19, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D. 699 (Dallas v. Lahl) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dallas v. Lahl, 269 A.D. 699, 53 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries. Defendants appeal from a judgment entered on a jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff. • Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Reversible error was committed by allowing, on rebuttal, evidence of conversations alleged to have been had by the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s witness ICamin with defendants’ witness Tifverman, which evidence impeached the direct testimony given by Tifverman. No foundation was laid for the reception of,such testimony. Its reception was prejudicial and requires reversal and a new trial. (Loughlin v. Brassil, 187 N. Y. 128; Hanlon v. Ehrich, 178 N. Y. 474; Richardson on Evidence [6th ed.], § 580.) The court has considered the questions of fact and has determined that it would not grant a new trial upon those questions were it not for the error alluded to. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Action to recover damages for personal injuries. Defendants appeal from a judgment entered on a jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff. • Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Reversible error was committed by allowing, on rebuttal, evidence of conversations alleged to have been had by the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s witness ICamin with defendants’ witness Tifverman, which evidence impeached the direct testimony given by Tifverman. No foundation was laid for the reception of,such testimony. Its reception was prejudicial and requires reversal and a new trial. (Loughlin v. Brassil, 187 N. Y. 128; Hanlon v. Ehrich, 178 N. Y. 474; Richardson on Evidence [6th ed.], § 580.) The court has considered the questions of fact and has determined that it would not grant a new trial upon those questions were it not for the error alluded to. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 699, 53 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dallas-v-lahl-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack